[Wikipedia-l] Re: GFDL Clarification

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 6/4/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> > We need a clear statement [...] that the photos are released _by the
> > copyright holders_ under the GNU FDL. "It's fine to use this" is not
> > enough.
> 
> Unfortunately, many people in this thread have forgotten the option of
> public domain. If you just ask the copyright holder something like "do
> you forgo your copyright?" or perhaps even "can anyone use it for any
> purpose whatsoever?" then they are not only much more likely to give an
> informed answer, but in the case of a "yes" it's even more useful. We
> all know that the problems with the GNU FDL are even worse for images.
> How would you use a GFDL image in a (new) printed document?
> 
> The images I have contributed are [crap, but at least] public domain. :)

In many countries an author can not just abandon their copyright and
place works directly into the public domain. Even in the US, using a
work after being given a statement the someone has abandoned their
copyright can place you in a somewhat risky position.  We are better
off with licensed works. There are licenses which are very nearly as
liberal as PD, for example, BSD without the advertising clause.

We should discourage the use of {{PD}} entirely, and in it's favor
replace it with more clear tags which prevent confusion and to clarify
matters because of differing handling of PD around the world.  Classes
we should isolate should include,

* PD due to copyright lapse:
  * works older than the 1920s
  * works newer but not renewed
* PD due to statement by author (non-uploader, should include email
and we should avoid these)
* PD due to wishes of uploader who holds copyright (again discourage
in favor of a very liberal BSD, CC or the more restrictive GFDL).
* PD due to US government

and abandon {{PD}} for the wishful-thinking copyvios that it is
currently used so often on..